10/25/2011 1G:10FAX 20249351^2 FAA ^ DMS 001/007 

. in^NSPOfriAIIOM 

.•'^^^i^cTOPrRATiO^;s 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFHCE OF HEARINGS 2Q\ uC[ 2 b A Q: 9 b 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADIvnNISTR.ATrON _ , 

FEDERAL. AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

SKY KING, [NC. 

Respondent. 

C; • 2 5 ' m 

• \ : ^v^Ar-iiiv^-:; Lj^,^.-r i-\ r. 

FAA Docket No. CPl ISOOOOO 

Judge Richard C. Goodv/in 

FDMS No. KAA-201I-0670 

FAA Case No 2O10SO700422 

COMPEAINANT'S REPTV TO 

RESPONDEM S RESPONSE K ) ORDER TO SHOW C A_USE 

ComplainaTii, by and \hrough the imdersigned attorney, hereby replies to 

Complainant's Response TO the .Adrninislrative Law Judge's (ALj's) Order to Show 

CdLLse, dated October 5, 2011, as follows: 

1.' 

In essence, Respondent's cause for not responding to the Complaint in a timely 

mariner was that Respondent changed its pnmaiy address (to 910 Florin Rotid, Suite 200. 

Sacramento, California 95831) 

Respondent admits that it filed a Request for Hearing on June 8, 2011. However, 

neither this document nor its handwritten outer envelope provided the above new- primary 

address for Respondent, Exhibit 1. 
- nM^ 0)002/00 7 

10/25/201 1 16: 10 FAX 20249351^2 FAA LJni 

3. 

AS stated in our previous motion, according to §13,209(f), a person's failure to 

file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the tnjfh of each 

allegation contained in the complaint. See. FAA v. Buddc W. Flayter^ FAA Docket No. 

CP89GL0257 (March 19, 1990) ("Althou^i this is a severe penalty for failure to file an 

answer, the rule is clear and does not permit exceptions."). Re5i">ondcni's failure to 

notify neither the Hearing Docket nor Complainant of a change in itspnmary addres.s 

after requesting a hearing under the circumstances does not demonstrate good cause. 

Kiarter of Mark Steven Diainond, FAA Ord^r 'No. 95-10 (May lO, 1995)(Coun.sers 

mexpenence and unfamiliaiity with administrative procedure is not good cause); Richard 

Lee Dillman. FAA Docket No. C?9'>WP00] 5, Order seA'ed January i\ 2000.) 

4. 

There can be no credible argument that Respondent was confused about its 

responsibility to lilt: an Answer. As slated in the previous motion, the Complaint itself 

and ]\\s honor's Procedural Order, dated .September 6, 20] 1, specificaJly reniinded 

Respondent of its responsibility to file an Answer and the potential consequences of such 

failure. See. e.g. Matter ofCurnw'all, FA.^ Order No. 92-4:', p. s (1992). 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respeeifujly moves the Administrative Law Judge lo find: 

(2) thai Respondent has not demonstrated good cause for not filing a timely Answer: (2) 

deem as an admission of truth each allegation in the complaint, (3) if a hearing is still 

deemed necessary, that it should be only for the purpose of determining the amount of the 
10/25/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935U2 FA^ ^ QMS 0 003/007 

sanction in this matter. (3) Complainant also requests an extension of the discovery 

period to ai least 30 days after there is.a ruling on the y\gency's motion. 

Respectfully submitted this H day of October. 2011. 

GfRAl.D A. ELLTS 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
BHWD OP. i^:r^ 

OS 3UW 2011 PM 3 T 

/ 

f^ ir] 

Op 

O 
10/25/2011 16. 10 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS g]005/00 7 

KtlKINe 

Junes , 2011 

RE: Hearing Request Case No. 2O10SO700422 

federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Room 2W1000 

Dear Attention: Hearing Docket Cierk, 

This letter is t o request a Formal Hearing concerning Case No. 2010SO700422, and to provide a Written 

Answer to each of the allegations contained in the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. Sky King will 

address each of the following allegations according to 14 CFR, Section 13.35: 

1. DenyOn August 6, 2010, Sky King did not knowingly offer to United Parcel Service (UPS) a one-piece 

consisting of a fiberboard box containing hazardous materials for transportation by air. In an 

interview with the individual in our shipping department who packaged and shipped the 

assembly, he stated that he simply did not realirethe unit fell into that category. Not being an 

aircraft technician, he looked at the unit as just another aircraft component. Sky King had 

ensured that this individual was trained and qualified to ship Hazardous Materials. 

2. Admit 

3. Admit 

4. Admit 

5. Admit 

6. Admit 

7. Admit 

8. Admit 

9. Admit 

10. Admit 

11. Admit 

12. Admit 

13. Admit 

14. Admit 

15. Admit 

Sky King, lac, • 3600 Power Inn Road, Suiie H * Sncramonto. C A 9^S26 • (916) J.'i4-2400 • Fax (9\6) 737-8960 
10/25/201 1 16:10 FAX 2024935112 FAA - OMS (21006/007 

In a letter dated May 5, 2011. Sky King provided the FAA with additional information concerning actions 

taken to prevent further violations of 49 CFR Parts 171-173. These actions cost Sky King approximately 

$9,000 for specialized training and training material. 

It is our opinion that Sky King provided the required training for its shipping personnel and that the 

shippirxg person made a mistake; therefore. Sky King did not knowingly ship Hazardous Material. 

Notwithstanding, Sky King took significant corrective aaio n to ensure we did not repeat this mistake. 

Finally, since this was the first mistake niade in over 10 years ot either Part 12S or Part 121 operations 

that the Civil Penalty is not appropriate. It seems to us that the matter could have been handled 

administratively (since it was not on purpose) instead of the $22,500 Civil Penalty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen A. Badger 

Sky King, Inc., Representative 

(916) 454-2400 Q^ email sbadger(a)fly-skyking.com 

CERTIFrCATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Request for Hearing has been mailed on June y. 2011 . by Certified 

Mail or Rrgiilar Mdilto : 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-4.^0 

Wilbur Wright Buildmg 

Room 2W1000 

Gerald A. Ellis, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Stephen A. Badger ( J 

.Sky King Director of Safety and Security 

Sky Kmg. Inc.. * J600 Power Inn Road, Suire H • Sacramemo. CA 95S26 • (916) 454-2400 • Fax I'^IG) 737-R96U 
10/25/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935U2 FAft - DMS @]007/00' 

CKRTIFIC.ATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complainant's Reply to Respondent's 

Response lo Order to Show Cause has been sent via facsimile and mailed this date by 

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

DOT. Administrative Law fudge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Kloor 

RoomE12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-75.30 

(original) 

Stephen A. Badger 

V.P. of Flight Operations and 

Director of Safety and Security 

Sky King, Inc. 

910 Florin Roiid, Suite 3U() 

Sacramento, California 95831 

FAX: 541-647-1127 

(1 copy) 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilhur Wright Building 

SOO Independence Avenue. SW 

W.ishingion. DC 20591 

(1 copy-Certified Only) 

Lcfcai Assistant 

Otni5e of the Regional Counsel 

OCT 1 9 20M 

Dated